Why is the UK struggling more than other countries?

[Kwasaki]

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

After reading all the predictions of British people starving to death, freezing to death and dying in hospitals because no nurses and no drugs if we left the E.U .

   Simply still be alive is a success 

After covid for sure. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Choosing not to know. It is to laugh.

Just have no interest .

Bit like: The economic effect of the World Cup on the Indian economy

I have no interest in reading about it 

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Those were the predictions , 

Of whom? This is the same tactic that climate change deniers use by citing extreme predictions made by the unqualified. Give it up.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Just have no interest .

Bit like: The economic effect of the World Cup on the Indian economy

I have no interest in reading about it 

Yet here you are making lots of posts about the british economy but ignoring the effects of Brexit. You're not fooling anybody.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yet here you are making lots of posts about the british economy but ignoring the effects of Brexit. You're not fooling anybody.

He's not interested in the economic effects of an economic alliance. It only bolsters the argument that the real motivation of brexiteers is xenophobia and racism.

[placeholder]

The UK's finance minister has said he recognises that Brexit has brought trade barriers with the EU, but rejected calls for Britain to rejoin the single market, arguing that most obstacles can be removed over time.

Jeremy Hunt's comments come amid a growing clamour from the business world for Britain to re-enter the European market that enables free trade via common rules and standards.

His acknowledgement of numerous obstacles is in sharp contrast to Boris Johnson's assertion, as prime minister in 2020, that his newly-struck post-Brexit trade deal would bring "no non-tariff barriers to trade", and "if anything allow our companies and our exporters to do even more business with our European friends".

https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/18/brexit-jeremy-hunt-admits-uk-eu-trade-barriers-but-rejects-rejoining-single-market

[Kwasaki]

11 hours ago, ozimoron said:

He's not interested in the economic effects of an economic alliance. It only bolsters the argument that the real motivation of brexiteers is xenophobia and racism.

That's a bit rich, come on. ????

[RayC]

12 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Thanks , but it doesn't interest me in the slightest , it doesn't bother me either way , whether its had a positive or negative effect

Deleted. Duplicates @placeholder post

[johnnybangkok]

On 11/18/2022 at 11:04 AM, superal said:

So why is the preferred country of choice for so many so called asylum seekers , the UK ?  If they have fled from central Asia they would hit southern Europe first but choose not to settle there but instead make the long journey to France and then pay £4000 for a rubber dinghy illegal trip to the UK where they will be housed and put on the benefit system . Asylum seekers do not have to any skills , job offers or any command of the English language . Where it says , Applicants must demonstrate their ability to communicate in English (A-level or equivalent). That has to be a joke because many of the eastern Europeans struggle to make any sense with a weak English speech . Am I right that Australia process their asylum seekers , not in Australia but in a Pacific island ?Indeed that is what Suella Braveman wants to do but in Rwanda and Peru . I hope she succeeds .

•  

I really wish people would do at least the minimum of research before they comment on matters they clearly have no understanding of.
Firstly the UK is NOT the preferred choice for many asylum seekers. Almost every single other European country gets far more asylum seekers than the uk.
Secondly “People seeking asylum are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits in the UK. In most cases, they are also banned from working. They can access support in the form of housing and basic living expenses while in the UK through the Home Office. This is usually known as ‘asylum support’, but you may also hear people refer to ‘section 95 support’, or ‘section 4 support’, which are different types of support available depending on people’s circumstances and the status of their asylum claim.

This means that the majority of people seeking asylum in the UK end up living on £5.66 per day to cover almost all their needs, including food, clothing, transport and medicine. This places them more than 70% below the poverty line. Many are forced to make impossible decisions between feeding themselves or buying medicine for their families.”  https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/
 

That took me all of 2 minutes to find. 

 

 

[superal]

33 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I really wish people would do at least the minimum of research before they comment on matters they clearly have no understanding of.
Firstly the UK is NOT the preferred choice for many asylum seekers. Almost every single other European country gets far more asylum seekers than the uk.
Secondly “People seeking asylum are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits in the UK. In most cases, they are also banned from working. They can access support in the form of housing and basic living expenses while in the UK through the Home Office. This is usually known as ‘asylum support’, but you may also hear people refer to ‘section 95 support’, or ‘section 4 support’, which are different types of support available depending on people’s circumstances and the status of their asylum claim.

This means that the majority of people seeking asylum in the UK end up living on £5.66 per day to cover almost all their needs, including food, clothing, transport and medicine. This places them more than 70% below the poverty line. Many are forced to make impossible decisions between feeding themselves or buying medicine for their families.”  https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/
 

That took me all of 2 minutes to find. 

 

 

Well , this year alone, up till now , there has been in excess of 40,000 asylum seekers who preferred the long haul to the UK , instead of other European countries . They will all be taken care of at the expense of the UK tax payer . Last year there were 4,8450 asylum applications with the approval rate of 72% . It is correct that an asylum seeker cannot access all the state benefits but once the application is approved they can be given accommodation and many benefits .  

Spin it which anyway you want but these people are illegal entrants . They chose to travel through Europe , pay £4000 each for the channel crossing to enter the UK illegally . They are lucky not to be turned around to the place of departure . They are all aware that waiting for their process will be a lengthy  time . Many have money and are lucky to get the £5.66 a day . They also have friends & family who can help and support them .  As for the single male Albanians ( 40% of illegal entrants ) , they are straight off to be with their mafia mates , as soon as they are registered .

You really need to keep up to date with the crux of the event .

[johnnybangkok]

17 minutes ago, superal said:

Well , this year alone, up till now , there has been in excess of 40,000 asylum seekers who preferred the long haul to the UK , instead of other European countries . They will all be taken care of at the expense of the UK tax payer . Last year there were 4,8450 asylum applications with the approval rate of 72% . It is correct that an asylum seeker cannot access all the state benefits but once the application is approved they can be given accommodation and many benefits .  

Spin it which anyway you want but these people are illegal entrants . They chose to travel through Europe , pay £4000 each for the channel crossing to enter the UK illegally . They are lucky not to be turned around to the place of departure . They are all aware that waiting for their process will be a lengthy  time . Many have money and are lucky to get the £5.66 a day . They also have friends & family who can help and support them .  As for the single male Albanians ( 40% of illegal entrants ) , they are straight off to be with their mafia mates , as soon as they are registered .

You really need to keep up to date with the crux of the event .

You are conflating two different things. Illegal immigrants are NOT asylum seekers (you’re original post). By definition they are illegally entering the country and will be thrown out if caught. Asylum seekers on the other hand have a process to follow that will/won’t allow them to remain. I’m sure there are plenty of mafia Albanians in the UK but they are likely to be illegal immigrants rather than asylum seekers. No one is condoning illegal immigrants. They shouldn’t be there, hence the “illegal” bit. 
And by the way 40,000 is nothing. With 148,200 applicants registered in 2021, Germany accounted for 27.7% of all first-time asylum applicants in the EU. It was followed by France (103 800, or 19.4%). 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics&oldid=558844

[ozimoron]

18 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You are conflating two different things. Illegal immigrants are NOT asylum seekers (you’re original post). By definition they are illegally entering the country and will be thrown out if caught. Asylum seekers on the other hand have a process to follow that will/won’t allow them to remain. I’m sure there are plenty of mafia Albanians in the UK but they are likely to be illegal immigrants rather than asylum seekers. No one is condoning illegal immigrants. They shouldn’t be there, hence the “illegal” bit. 
And by the way 40,000 is nothing. With 148,200 applicants registered in 2021, Germany accounted for 27.7% of all first-time asylum applicants in the EU. It was followed by France (103 800, or 19.4%). 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics&oldid=558844

The racists don't want to acknowledge the difference unless the refugees are European.

[superal]

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You are conflating two different things. Illegal immigrants are NOT asylum seekers (you’re original post). By definition they are illegally entering the country and will be thrown out if caught. Asylum seekers on the other hand have a process to follow that will/won’t allow them to remain. I’m sure there are plenty of mafia Albanians in the UK but they are likely to be illegal immigrants rather than asylum seekers. No one is condoning illegal immigrants. They shouldn’t be there, hence the “illegal” bit. 
And by the way 40,000 is nothing. With 148,200 applicants registered in 2021, Germany accounted for 27.7% of all first-time asylum applicants in the EU. It was followed by France (103 800, or 19.4%). 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics&oldid=558844

They all apply for asylum but still all are illegal entrants .  Europe/E.C. countries such as Germany are bound by E.C. rules in the numbers they take in . The UK is no longer in the E.U. and so is not part of that agreement .  

Finally the E.C. are still hurting because the UK left the E.C. They have made trading difficult on purpose with bureaucracy and unneeded paperwork . The UK will recover from this recession within 2 years but there are tough times ahead for the less well off .  

[johnnybangkok]

41 minutes ago, superal said:

They all apply for asylum but still all are illegal entrants .  Europe/E.C. countries such as Germany are bound by E.C. rules in the numbers they take in . The UK is no longer in the E.U. and so is not part of that agreement .  

Finally the E.C. are still hurting because the UK left the E.C. They have made trading difficult on purpose with bureaucracy and unneeded paperwork . The UK will recover from this recession within 2 years but there are tough times ahead for the less well off .  

You are completely missing the point and I think it’s telling that you don’t know the difference. 
If someone lands in the UK (or any country) and claims asylum, they are an asylum seeker. If they come in without declaring asylum and don’t get caught (in the back of a lorry for example), they are an illegal immigrant. 
Two different things. Two different subjects. 
And the EU are not “hurting”. They owe the UK nothing. The UK decided to leave so it now has to follow whatever processes any other country would have to who also gave up their trade deal with the EU. Maybe start blaming the people who actually did the leaving (who were warned constantly about what was going yo happen) rather than the EU. 
 

[Eleftheros]

 

I wonder if the above expenditure might be causing the UK to struggle to some degree? Will anybody be held accountable? No. So what's to stop them making the same colossal blunders next time.

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, superal said:

They all apply for asylum but still all are illegal entrants .  Europe/E.C. countries such as Germany are bound by E.C. rules in the numbers they take in . The UK is no longer in the E.U. and so is not part of that agreement .  

Finally the E.C. are still hurting because the UK left the E.C. They have made trading difficult on purpose with bureaucracy and unneeded paperwork . The UK will recover from this recession within 2 years but there are tough times ahead for the less well off .  

Another arithmetically challenged comment. The EU economy is about 5 times the size of the UK. As a percentage of the various economies in the EU, each of them did far less trade with the UK than the UK did with the EU. 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

I really wish people would do at least the minimum of research before they comment on matters they clearly have no understanding of.
Firstly the UK is NOT the preferred choice for many asylum seekers. Almost every single other European country gets far more asylum seekers than the uk.
Secondly “People seeking asylum are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits in the UK. In most cases, they are also banned from working. They can access support in the form of housing and basic living expenses while in the UK through the Home Office. This is usually known as ‘asylum support’, but you may also hear people refer to ‘section 95 support’, or ‘section 4 support’, which are different types of support available depending on people’s circumstances and the status of their asylum claim.

This means that the majority of people seeking asylum in the UK end up living on £5.66 per day to cover almost all their needs, including food, clothing, transport and medicine. This places them more than 70% below the poverty line. Many are forced to make impossible decisions between feeding themselves or buying medicine for their families.”  https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/
 

That took me all of 2 minutes to find. 

 

 

Two minutes? Not surprised. Many of the so-called facts on their site are just dribble.

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You are speaking to a person who wanted the UK to remain in the E.U because the U.K then had White European immigrants and he's complaining that now immigrants from Asia and Africa are "swarming in" to the U.K since we left the E.U

    Remainers wanted White European immigrants , leavers were not concerned where the immigrants came from , be it Europe ,Africa or Asia

More rubbish. 

[candide]

1 hour ago, superal said:

They all apply for asylum but still all are illegal entrants .  Europe/E.C. countries such as Germany are bound by E.C. rules in the numbers they take in . The UK is no longer in the E.U. and so is not part of that agreement .  

Finally the E.C. are still hurting because the UK left the E.C. They have made trading difficult on purpose with bureaucracy and unneeded paperwork . The UK will recover from this recession within 2 years but there are tough times ahead for the less well off .  

Come on! The EU is applying the agreement negotiated by BoJo. There is nothing exceptional about it. It's the same rules the UK was actually applying to third countries while it was in the EU. It's also the same rules the UK is currently applying to third countries, as most EU laws have been retained.

Of course, for Brexiteers, It's always someone else's fault (usually the EU), 

[candide]

54 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

 

I wonder if the above expenditure might be causing the UK to struggle to some degree? Will anybody be held accountable? No. So what's to stop them making the same colossal blunders next time.

I wouldn't bet all of it has been spend wisely (the government was not particularly competent), but it has likely allowed the survival of the UK economy, you know like preventing the health system to collapse, preventing businesses from going bankrupt, preventing people from having to sell their house at any price by necessity, etc....

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Two minutes? Not surprised. Many of the so-called facts on their site are just dribble.

Calling something dribble without backing it up with facts is just dribble.

[3NUMBAS]

covid perhaps

 

all my local thai eateries near where i live in uk have never recovered after covid

 

very few sit downs and less  takeaways

 

they operate without a manager and just a skeleton staff

 

jobs at thai eateries in the uk are a lot less and short term working ,and they usually employ thai staff who no longer can afford trips back home to see the family

[3NUMBAS]

many coming across the channel are albanian gangsters and criminals who have to be sent back

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11413539/Flight-takes-22-Albanian-criminals-illegal-immigrants-home-country.html

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: Heavily-guarded secret dawn flight takes 22 Albanian criminals and illegal immigrants back to their home country

Last month in total, 347 people were deported, including 118 to Albania, 39 to Brazil, 38 to Romania, 26 to Poland and 20 to Lithuania, according to figures from the Home Office released this week.

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

covid perhaps

 

all my local thai eateries near where i live in uk have never recovered after covid

 

very few sit downs and less  takeaways

 

they operate without a manager and just a skeleton staff

 

jobs at thai eateries in the uk are a lot less and short term working ,and they usually employ thai staff who no longer can afford trips back home to see the family

Could that also be because Thai food (and Thailand in general) is less popular now in the U.K than it was 20 years ago ?

[3NUMBAS]

dont think  so ,thai food is still popular i would say

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Two minutes? Not surprised. Many of the so-called facts on their site are just dribble.

Care to elaborate or is this the height of your debating skills?

[Eleftheros]

55 minutes ago, candide said:

I wouldn't bet all of it has been spend wisely (the government was not particularly competent), but it has likely allowed the survival of the UK economy, you know like preventing the health system to collapse, preventing businesses from going bankrupt, preventing people from having to sell their house at any price by necessity, etc....

Excuse me, they could have avoided all those problems by not locking down the whole economy in the first place, and focused on looking after the extremely vulnerable. That's what their own Pandemic Preparedness Strategy, which had been developed over 10 years, recommended.

 

Instead, they locked down healthy people (for the first time in recorded history), following the example of China, and launched the country into a comedy of murderous errors whose effects will persist for decades and be mainly felt by children and future generations.

 

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Care to elaborate or is this the height of your debating skills?

The first thing that the website says is that "one of the most important facts about refugees in the UK is that they’re currently under attack like never before". That statement is not true IMO - Britain has always protected and given sanctuary to true refugees.

The problem is not those who are not fleeing real danger but those who have left a safe place and are trying to enter the country illegally for their own ends. This latter group causes a big and costly problem, whatever happens to them later.

[Mac Mickmanus]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The first thing that the website says is that "one of the most important facts about refugees in the UK is that they’re currently under attack like never before". That statement is not true IMO - Britain has always protected and given sanctuary to true refugees.

The problem is not those who are not fleeing real danger but those who have left a safe place and are trying to enter the country illegally for their own ends. This latter group causes a big and costly problem, whatever happens to them later.

The UK has always welcomed genuine refugees  . The problem is the people who cannot get a U.K visa and just decide to sail across and arrive without a visa and then get hotel accommodation and living costs , those the the people who are "under attack" in the U.K

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The UK has always welcomed genuine refugees  . The problem is the people who cannot get a U.K visa and just decide to sail across and arrive without a visa and then get hotel accommodation and living costs , those the the people who are "under attack" in the U.K

That's because most of them are probably not genuine refugees, Mac. How many of them even tried to get a visa or enter legally I wonder?